FROM the EDITORS:

IMPORTANT INFORMATION:Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Which atheism do you not believe in?

The modern atheist is, Archbishop Fulton Sheen observed in Peace of Soul, "always angered when he hears anything said about God and religion--he would be incapable of such a resentment if God were only a myth." The great Sheen likely borrowed this point from G.K. Chesterton, himself a former agnostic of sorts, who wrote, in Where All Road Lead:

“Atheism is the supreme example of a simple faith. The truth is that the atmosphere of excitement by which the atheist lives, is an atmosphere of thrilled and shuttering theism, and not of atheism at all; it is an atmosphere of defiance and not of denial. . . . If there were not God, there would be no atheists.”

There has been much talk, including on this blog, about recent books by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, whose disdain for Christianity specifically and religion in general would be hard to overstate (although, it should be noted, Harris has a certain soft spot for Buddhism). Now Christopher Hitchens has entered the ring with a new book titled God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, which is selling briskly at amazon.com (#4 as of this writing). Evangelical historian Preston Jones reviews the book for Christianity Today and points out that Hitchens using a broad and convenient brush when it comes to the subject at hand:

But then, what does Hitchens mean by religion? Under
the same umbrella he groups Mother Teresa, voodoo, the pope,
"fear-ridden peasants of antiquity," Muslim suicide bombers, animists,
"arid monotheism," the archbishop of Canterbury, séances, Thomas
Aquinas, an evangelical huckster "dressed in a Little Lord Fauntleroy
suit," Muhammad, the "tawdry myths of Bethlehem," the "vapid and
annoying holiday known as 'Hanukah,'" Mormons, "hysterical Jewish
congregations," the "sordid" theology of Pascal, Martin Luther King,
rednecks, "cobbled-together ancient Jewish books" (i.e., the Bible),
WWII-era Japanese emperor worship, and male circumcision (which
Hitchens describes as "mutilation of a powerless infant with the aim of
ruining its future sex life").

It's true that readers would expect a review of a book titled God Is Not Great,
published in a place like this, to be unfriendly. But if Hitchens had
anything new and persuasive to tell us, I would say so. Alas, as the
preceding paragraph suggests, we are dealing with a very intelligent
and well-read author who, when it comes to "religion," is simply
incapable of reason. Hitchens admires Socrates' claim to be certain
only of his own ignorance. The reader wishes that Hitchens would
exchange admiration for emulation. The effect of his not doing so is
the feeling that one is rather in the presence of an exceedingly angry
sophist, and that is sad. But it also sometimes evokes a brief giggle,
as when Hitchens writes that "many religions force themselves to think
of the birth canal as a one-way street, and even the Koran treats the
Virgin Mary with reverence." (It must have seemed funny at the time.)

Hitchens wants to make us laugh; everyone
acknowledges his skill at delivering zingers. And given his fluency and
astonishing cerebral quickness, he makes for a formidable
conversationalist and debater. The problem often comes when one
actually pays attention to what he says. Hitchens notices that human
beings have a need to worship, but he denies that anything is to be
worshipped. He criticizes the Bible for not standing up to the rigors
of contemporary forensics, but he knows that ancient literature is
fundamentally different from government reports. (It really is absurd
to critique Genesis for not mentioning plesiosaurs and pterodactyls.)
Hitchens hymns the praises of the knowledge gained from the Human
Genome Project, but he doesn't mention what he surely knows—that the
project's leader, Francis Collins, has made his Christian commitment
quite public. Indeed, Hitchens does not recognize or allude to other
highly respected scientists who, like Collins, have written on the
compatibility of Christian faith and scientific discovery.

Meanwhile, this recent piece from the Associated Press points out that Hichens, Harris, and Co. are being criticized "for being too militant, for not just
disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And
who’s leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out." Jay Lindsay continues:

Among the millions of Americans who don’t
believe God exists, there’s a split between people such as Greg
Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at
Harvard University, and so-called “New Atheists.”

Epstein and
other humanists feel their movement is on verge of explosive growth,
but are concerned it will be dragged down by what they see as the
militancy of New Atheism.

The most pre-eminent New Atheists
include best-selling authors Richard Dawkins, who has called the God of
the Old Testament “a psychotic delinquent,” and Sam Harris, who
foresees global catastrophe unless faith is renounced. They say
religious belief is so harmful it must be defeated and replaced by
science and reason.

Epstein calls them “atheist
fundamentalists.” He sees them as rigid in their dogma, and as
intolerant as some of the faith leaders with whom atheists share the
most obvious differences.

Next month, as Harvard celebrates the
30th anniversary of its humanist chaplaincy, Epstein will use the
occasion to provide a counterpoint to the New Atheists.

“Humanism is not about erasing religion,” he said. “It’s an embracing philosophy.” ....

A 2006 Baylor University survey estimates about 15 million atheists in the United States.

Not
all nonbelievers identify as humanists or atheists, with some calling
themselves agnostics, freethinkers or skeptics. But humanists see the
potential for unifying the groups under their banner, creating a large,
powerful minority that can’t be ignored or disdained by mainstream
political and social thinkers.

This point about different types of atheism is an important one, but is often missed or ignored, including by many Christians. Although I don't claim to be an expert on atheism, I've rashly written some pieces about it, and this very point was one of the most important things that I learned in the process. In a 2005 piece about atheism writen for Our Sunday Visitor (based, in part, on an older article for Envoy magazine; read the entire piece here), I wrote:

Atheists often disagree among themselves about what it means to be an atheist. Ignace Lepp, a convert to Catholicism from Marxism and atheism, observed, “It would not be at all false to say that there are as many atheisms as atheists.” (Atheism In Our Time [New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1963] 12). This presents a formidable challenge to the Catholic who encounters atheism and attempts to address it.

Among the many different types of atheism are weak atheism (lacking a belief in a God), strong atheism (believing God cannot exist), disproof atheism (believing most evidence points to God’s nonexistence), methodological atheism (claiming theists fail to give sufficient proof for God’s existence), mystical atheism (based on a private, subjective experience), and faith atheism (believing in nonexistence of God based on “faith”). Forms of atheisms range from political ideologies (Marxism) to scientific perspectives (Darwinian evolution) to existential viewpoints (nihilism).

Michael Martin, an atheist author and apologist, notes that atheism is not necessarily the rejection of God’s existence, but rejection of faith in God: “In Greek ‘a’ means ‘without’ or ‘not’ and ‘theos’ means ‘god.’ From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.” (Atheism: A Philosophical Justification [Temple University Press, 1990) 463).

For this reason some atheists prefer to be called freethinkers, rationalists, humanists, or agnostics. Often the differences appear to be little more than semantics. But agnostics, who traditionally are ambivalent about man’s ability to know whether God exists or not, are often scorned by staunch atheists, such as the infamous Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who once sneered that “the agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp.” (from www.infidels.org).

As Mark Brumley has hinted at and as more and more apologetically-minded folks are recognizing, Catholics and other Christians need to take seriously the philosophical and even polemical arguments made by atheists, not to so much to put more strident atheists in their place, but to show, in a variety of ways, that Christianity is not only not contrary to reason, goodness, and order, but is an essential reason why they still exist today in the face of irrationality, evil, and chaos. This means, among others things, a decent understanding of Church history and a basic grounding in philosophy, both of which can be obtained, to a large degree, through reading books and articles by authors such as Chesterton, Sheen, C.S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft, James V. Schall, S.J., Frank Sheed, Thomas Howard, Josef Pieper, Thomas Dubay, S.M., and others.

A short list of books available from Ignatius Press that address skepticism and atheism include:

Many, many years ago, I tried to stick up for CH. No more. Not for some time. Anyway, I'm writing a book: it called "Authors are not Great: How literature poisons everything" with chapters on Hitler's Mein Kampf, Stalin's Pravda, Ted Kazinki's Manifesto, Mao Zedung's Little Red Book, and Chris Hitchens' God is not Great.

Catholics and other Christians need to take seriously the philosophical and even polemical arguments made by atheists, not to so much to put more strident atheists in their place, but to show, in a variety of ways, that Christianity is not only not contrary to reason, goodness, and order, but is an essential reason why they still exist today in the face of irrationality, evil, and chaos.

This is very well-said. However, this assumes that there's actually someone listening on the other end. I know that people of all kinds of religious beliefs close their minds to new ideas, but I never cease to be amazed at how closed and extraordinarily defensive the atheist crowd tends to be when discussing Christianity. As a former atheist, I try to share my realizations about the Church and Christianity with other atheists, and I am shocked by how often I'm met with insults and hostility. I think the biggest challenge is not getting the data out there, but just figuring out how to phrase it so that non-believers will listen.

I think the biggest challenge is not getting the data out there, but just figuring out how to phrase it so that non-believers will listen.

A great point. I've also experienced the hostility of atheists. There are, of course, some people who simply will not listen, no matter how you approach them. But I think that as we learn more about what atheists believe and what we as Christians believe, we will have more to draw from in having conversations. For example, when I was a Fundamentalist, I couldn't do much more than say, "Hey, the Bible says there is a God! So why don't you believe in Him?" That approach, obviously, has some serious defects, not the least in assuming that atheists see the Bible as I do. But by using logic, philosophy, history, science, etc., we can offer food for thought. Yet, in the end, you can only lead the horse to water. You can't make him drink.

"I think the biggest challenge is not getting the data out there, but just figuring out how to phrase it so that non-believers will listen."

There's a danger here. It seems to me that many heathens won't listen unless Christ and Christianity are packaged attractively, dressed up, essentially consumerized. Such is the state of our consumerist, Oprahist dictatorship of relativism. Not truth, but comfort, convenience, safety, inclusivity, etc. are the primary considerations for loyal subjects of this regime. Therefore talk of sin, the necessity for redemption from it as sinners, judgment, Hell must be left out of "sales pitch" even though these things rest at the core of Christianity. I think it's best to tell it as it is in every respect, both the "soft" and the "hard" truths, that, for instance, "there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved," that Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life" - THE way, THE truth, and THE life. As a former Nietzschean, I respected those who were willing to lay it all out on the table like this while I detested those who lacked the integrity and moral fortitude and conviction to do so. Potential converts deserve the whole truth, not merely the most attractive truths. I know you weren't saying otherwise, Jennifer, but I think this is the danger when a focus on packaging becomes paramount.